I once heard that elite soldiers were the ones you could send marching through a forest, out of sight, without half of them deserting. Don't know how accurate that is, but it seems somewhat plausible. :D
A very exaggerated and silly definition, BUT, not without some truth in it. Battlemorale is a big thing, and soldiers that are better paid, have better equipment, sometimes better training, as well as a higher degree of group pressure and social onus, they're much more likely to obey orders.
@@DIREWOLFx75 No. Not true. Take f i swedish and finnish soldiers during the 17th century. Poorly paid, poorly fed and wearing rags, they kicked a*s for a 100 year period against the strongest armies of Europe. From the 1620's up until the first decade of the 1700's.
18th century soldiers seem to have had a high desertion rate in general. During the 1745-6 Jacobite Rebellion, for example, there were numerous desertions from both sides - the government army on the whole enrolled suspected deserters back into their units, or into other regiments of the same army. Suspicion however arose of some who had in fact deserted to the Jacobites, and then left that service. Two soldiers who turned up in Stafford tried to rejoin the British Army - I think they had been in Lascelles' 47th Regiment. But they were so far south that suspicion arose that they had gone over to the Jacobites and then deserted from them when they reached Derby and then turned back north. One of the two was sentenced to death but pardoned on condition he rejoin the British Army. All trace is lost of the other - possibly he died in jail while under arrest.
@@stevekaczynski3793 Desertions tends to be a common thing in most of history. Certain armies had less, others had more, but overall it was always a "thing".
"Nobby, you was always on the winning side, the reason bein', you used to lurk aroun' the edges to see who was winning and then pull the right uniform off'f some poor dead sod. I used to hear where the generals kept an eye on what you were wearin' so they'd know how the battle was going.
I once saw a Royal Marine officer being asked about his corp's 'elite' status. His response was 'Elite implies that a unit has reached a certain standard and that is dangerous. We, on the other hand, will always recruit and train in the assumption that there are always higher standards to achieve.'
@@podemosurss8316 Yeah, I knew that because when I was Germany everyone was glad I was American and not British. It seems like Brits took the title of most obnoxious tourists in Europe lol (at least when I travelled around back in 2012) I even saw a sign in a brewery in Belgium that said “British tourist go home”
I always found it Hilariously random that during (the US) civil war a bunch of bros from like NY or Missouri would just randomly decide to go to battle dressed as Aladin because there was an elite unit from French North Africa that dressed like that...
@@daveweiss5647 You mean the Zuaves regiments? There uniforms where based on the french uniforms of that same name. Originally an argelinian light unit. Popular until 1942-45
1:30 If you ask a US Marine, the Corps is the greatest fighting force known to man. If you ask a US Navy Sailor, they’re the armed forces equivalent of a 14-year old who will yell that he’s a big, grown man who doesn’t need you any more “Dad”, but still expects you to feed him and drive him everywhere.
Interesting little fact: the Austrian Empire did not have Guards units, as Kaiserin und Konigin Maria Thresa and her successors considered them an unnecessary expense and no better than the best line units. The closest you could say the Austrians and Austro-Hungarians came to having a guards unit was, in all likelihood, Infantrie Regiment (I.R.) No. 4 Hochs und Deutschmeister , which was raised ans stationed in Vienna.
Correct, they did not have Guards units, though later the Kaiserjäger had some Guards features. There was another wrinkle in this, namely that there was a tendency to consider mainly German-speaking units as a cut above or at least more reliable than infantry regiments with large numbers of non-Germans. So the 4th had a high reputation, but so did the 27th, also mainly German-speakers, the 49th, again German-speaking and mostly from the Graz area, and a few others. "Bohemian" regiments were somewhat suspect, especially in WW1, with the Prague-raised 28th being disbanded after large numbers went over to the Russians in 1915, though the actual circumstances are controversial (many soldiers in the unit were Bohemian Germans rather than Czechs - though the incident was thought to indicate the unreliability of Czechs).
There where actually four separate guard units in existence during the late early-modern period, the oldest specifically raised by Maria Therese herself. These where small formations though and differed from the larger line regiments in being meant as ceremonial palace troops which did not take to the field in times of war.
I'm the English teacher who loves the way you speak. Using your provided subtitles (additional points, by the way) I can see how your improvisations and asides are as eloquent as your script while also breaking down information that might be too dense for some and breaking up rhythms that might become monotonous. Marvelous.
For Spain, the military organisation was far more centralised than the British one. What you describe in 7:00 for Spain happened during the reigns of Isabella I, Joanna I and later Charles I, with the unification of the various retinues into the Royal Army (previously, the Royal Armies of Castilla and Aragón, which were the personal armies of the kings of both kingdoms), with a proper organisation. The nobles loyal to the crown were given officer ranks into this unified Royal Army, becoming the new colonels, generals, captains and the like. At first the organisation was made centered around companies of around 200 men and "coronelías" of 10 companies, with the coronelías being the basis for the later (and larger) Tercios. During that period, there were a bunch of elite units (in the sense that they had better training and equipment than the rest) tasked with protecting the Monarch, but weren't an unified "Royal Guard", but rather the "Guardia de Alabarderos" (Halberders Guard) established by King Ferdinand after the death of Queen Isabella, or the "Guardia de Archeros de Borgoña" (Burgundian Glaive Guard), a company brought by the King Consort Philip the Handsome. In 1704, during the Spanish War of Succession, the new Philip V (of the French Borbon dynasty) unified most of those units (except for the ones that went and sided with the Austrian claimant) into the "Real Guardia de Corps" (Royal Guard), a reinforced regiment made from 5 companies (reinforced): two Spanish cavalry companies of 200 men each, 1 Flemish company of fusileers, 1 Italian company of fusileers and 1 "American" company of fusileers (that is, from the Spanish colonial territories in America). During the Napoleonic Wars (what in Spain is called "Guerra de Independencia" or "War for Independance"), the Royal Guards Regiment fought in several key engagements, and they certainly lived to the "elite" monicker, as it was their stubborn resistance against numerically superior enemies what allowed either the survival of the army (in battles like Ocaña in 1809) or turning the tides of the battle completely (such as happened in La Albuera in 1811).
I really hope we get to see a video on the "Gentleman volunteers", from my own research they seemed to have been quite common in Sweden. I have found some as young as 16 years old serving as volunteer in the regular line regiments during the early 19th century
Not a thing in the British Army in the 18th century, as far as I can tell. Gentlemen were officers, other ranks were not gentlemen, indeed Wellington's description of his men as "the scum of the earth" is notorious. The "one-year volunteer" concept first developed in Prussia, unless I am mistaken, Russia and Austria followed suit. These were other ranks with certain skills and often middle-class backgrounds who were allowed to serve a shortened period in the military and had certain privileges, like being allowed to wear a sword as a sidearm. One-year volunteers who stayed on sometimes received a commission, but the concept was unknown in the British Army.
@BrandonF I don't even know what a gentleman volunteer is, and I can't be the only one who don't know. So it would likely enlighten more people to what that term means. 😊
@@stevekaczynski3793 I am not familiar with it in the 19th C. but it was definitely a thing in the 18th. When I make a video on the topic I can delve into examples and such, although to relocate them I'd have to spend time researching.
An interesting piece to keep in mind is, as elaborated on in your Social Elitism segment their is by all means in most Guard regiments in the United Kingdom & in my experiance in Denmark, a sense of elitism in said regiments. Most Guards believe themselves superior to the rest of the army typically today manifested in the fact that they have higher uniform maintance & drill standards. I recall a documentary from the sixties on the Welsh Guards were the first line was something along the lines of, as soon as you enter the Guards you are taught that you are a Guard & as such better than the rest of the army. I wouldn't be aware whether this applies to the 18th century, however, this traditional regimental culture that exists in Guard regiment (Altough all regiments have a regimental pride, Guard regiments are something else), I wouldn't imagine this culture is all to different from what used to be. Afterall, the Grenadier Guards always stick by 'once a Grenadier always a Grenadier' & equally in the Royal Danish Lifeguard you have the saying 'Once a Guard, always a Guard'.
Yup. As i just posted myself, a good old quote: "To create an elite unit, tell them they are an elite unit and then let them get on with living up to that". It really does work, even if it's preferable to not rely SOLELY on this.
The interesting things about the Royal Life Guards (from Denmark) is that they view themselves as elite, yet the rest of the army view them as inferior. I was told, that if I wanted to be a professional soldier (as opposed to a conscript for a few months), then I should specifically NOT go to the guard, because I'd be trained as a soldier from day 1 in any other combat regiment, whereas the guard would waste a lot of time on drill (and for a long time the guard had inferior weapons too for ceremonial reasons). The guards would say that drill and ceremonial duties instill a sense of discipline that carries over to the field, the others would say it's time wasted on old useless stuffy ceremonial traditions. Yet even modern history shows that both the British and Danish guards have often been picked over other equivalent infantry regiments when some new concept or a particularly difficult task had to be accomplished, so I guess the aura of eliteness does something even though they aren't structurally different. I wonder whether the British rifles also still has a sense of eliteness carried over from the Napoleonic days.
@@fridrekr7510 its a combination of both pride and discipline, and while neither necessarily make a unit more effective, it does make them more motivated. thats useful to have as a military, because if you want a unit to do something kind of crazy, you can put the task onto the guards
Eh, the USMC is, in a sense, a military in its own right. It's got its own combat and amphibious vessels, a versatile ground combat force, and an air arm. Is it elite? In that it's versatile, and its troops are trained for amphibious warfare, giving them more tactical flexibility, sort of. But in a global context, it just makes them a fairly well trained military. They're not the same thing as the Royal Marines, who are a brigade of superbly trained amphibious light infantry commandos.
Plus there's only about 5,000 RM and more than 200,000 USMC so there's no fair comparison between the two. Interestingly, my brother was a RM and he used to tell me that the USMC were much better marksmen than the RMC were. In his opinion
Good analysis, and I'm a former Marine myself. I'd add the one distinction Marines have is every Marine carries the secondary MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) of rifleman, as in you can take any Marine, put him (now her I suppose) in an infantry platoon and while maybe not a specialist he'll be able to hold his own. Boot camp makes the basic Marine, and the basic Marine is an infantryman.
The Marines do have an (I believe) 4 week longer boot camp than standard Army and higher entrance standards and I believe their specialist training courses are longer as well, also higher marksmanship standards... so in that respect I would 100% say they are elite... it is just that the modern understanding of "elite" has been so influenced by the idea of elite=special forces... which most Marines are not (Except The Raiders, etc.) But within the US Military the Marines are 100% an elite service...
@@griffter68.58 He is not exaggerating. The USMC goes to quite a bit of time and trouble in training to cross-train all their people as basic rifleman, and even on some support weapons.
On the social side its interesting to note the even today there is no such rank of sergeant in the Household Cavalry because the title of sergeant is derived from the Latin "serviens" which means servant. Instead the equivalent rank is corporal of horse, with staff sergeant and sergeant major equivalents being staff corporals and corporal majors
I think the simple answer is, they're SUPPOSED TO BE elite, but is not by default. And i think that also sums it up for "guards" units overall. But there's some ways that they often differed from the average soldiery. Higher wages was common. Which along with other things also ensured a generally better level of battle morale, which in most times means A LOT, as many many battles were lost because units of one side broke and routed. Guard units were less likely to do so in general. Guard units meant to be household units and guards, often had extra training for those duties, and while not a huge advantage militarily most of the time, it did mean it was somewhat common for guards units to train more in total than regular units. If nothing else, this tended to mean that guard units had an average higher level of physical fitness. Rarely a big difference, but still noticeable. Also, many guard units did have SOME sort of requirements above those of regular units. As you mention, sometimes that simply focused on being able to pay their own way, possibly outright being able to buy all their own equipment, but higher physical requirements were somewhat common. Some guard units also specifically recruited experienced troops from the regular units, or sometimes this could be a "promotion"/reward for soldiers that had distinguished themselves in battle. It was also much more common for guard units to have standardised uniforms, long before it became normal, as well as using more blatant colors or ornate designs. And while most people will scoff at it, it actually DOES have some level of psychological effect, unconsciously telling people that "oh dear, these people are so much stronger they can just prance around like that", it's basically the same thing in reverse as how people put on their uniform to "become their job". There is an inherent authority in uniforms, and the more distinct and "peacock-ish", the greater the effect. While it's not a huge thing, it still does make SOME difference. It also tends to be a minor morale booster for the troops themselves. Which is one of the reasons why the British ended up with their redcoat uniforms. . Also, there a very important quote worth remembering here. "To create an elite unit, tell them they are an elite unit and then let them get on with living up to that". It's an extremely simplistic way of looking at it, but it is also perfectly true to some extent. Even with no other differences involved, if you have 2 identical units being created and one of them is told they're elite and that they darn well better live up to it, they generally WILL. Give them 10% extra pay and give them special uniforms? At that point you're pretty much guaranteed that they will at minimum TRY to be BETTER. Humans have a distinct tendency to live up, or down, to expectations.
True, though some commanders opposed the elite unit idea on the grounds that it reduced the morale of the run-of-the-mill units. For example, the British Army's tendency to create ad hoc units out of grenadiers and light infantry from various regiments has been criticised, as the bulk of infantry were in battalion companies, that is, the troops who were left.
@@stevekaczynski3793 In the Spanish case, given that each regiment comprised usually 3 (sometimes 4) battalions and the "grenadier" company was simply the leading company of each battalion (with the rest being the "musketeer companies"), it wasn't much of an "elite", other than the fact that the grenadier company had more soldiers (and were slightly better trained). (There wasn't dedicated light infantry as such in the Spanish Army, rather, all infantry was trained and expected to act as light infantry if needed) As for regiments that were considered "elite", those would be the reinforced ones (4 battalions instead of 3), which not only were larger, but also were made from mercenaries from other countries (the most important regiments were from Switzerland and Italy), or the Royal Guards.
In Württemberg during the reign of Frederick II & I (1797-1816) the guard brigade (eventually named Maison du Roi) were a complicated structure. You see, at some point they did have specific "guard regiments" on horse and on foot, however, they also had other standard regiments that had attained some sort of veterancy or reputation attached to the guard. For example, the guard grew exponentially in the course of around 15 years from 1800 to 1815, from 1 Batallion of Garde Grenadiers and one 4 squadrons of Horse guards (in reality each squadron had a different function, the first and the second were "Garde du Corp", the Third were the Leibjägers which were guides and the fourth were the Chevauxlegers which had an almost standard army function) to 2 regiments of Guard Infantry (one being the aforementioned Garde Grenadiers and the other being the first regiment of the standing army) 2 Horse regiments (one being a proper Horse Guard regiment which was made up from the previous Garde du Corp and the Leibjägers together with other raised men and the other also being a standard cavalry regiment from the standing army) 1 Light infantry regiment (Possibly the most famous unit in the army by that time and with reason) and 2 artillery batteries (one on foor and one on horse). Of course the organization for the army was way more complicated than that and fluctuated alot in Frederick's reign as Duke, Elector then King, and i still have many questions yet to be answered. One interesting thing was that once, the King's adjudant von Dillen, went to the garrison of one of the cavalry regiments and told the colonel he "wanted the strongest and most handsome of men to be selected for the Horse Garde regiment".
Damn, nice video! you should make a video on the history of each guard regiment, each regiment has so much history and honours it'll be fun to both research and present them
I like the distinction of “a cut above”. It captures the vagueness of the issue nicely - and lays a finger of modern (self-perceptions) of elite within armed forces.
Sadly another case of modern people struggling to understand that pre-modern armies simply didn't function like contemporary militaries - much less emphasis on physical training in particular as part of their recruitment process means there was really no mechanism for filtering 'better' soldiers into more 'elite' regiments, at least not at the scale of the entire army. The real factors that made a regiment elite or not were their standard of equipment, the calibre of their officers, and battlefield experience. Napoleon formed his guard regiments out of older soldiers who had proven themselves under fire - that's about the closest you'd get to an 18th or 19th century era SAS or Navy Seals programme.
I think experience plays just as much of a part, getting into so called "elite" units means you would've been in the military for some time anyways that's always been true. And "elite" units did have specialised training for their roles I.E Marines on naval landings etc, Light infantry on working independently from the group and skirmishing so on so forth
6:30 This is why it is called the "British army" and not the "Royal Army". Certain corps in the Army and services are "royal" however, like the Artillery and the Engineers. Meanwhile, the Navy was a Royal Service.
Okay, given that the Grenadier Guards and the Coldstream Guards and the Scots Guards still exist today, but now that the UK also has the Ranger Regiment and the SAS. Which is the more prestigious unit to be in? It's fascinating because we have an example of the old "Guards" but new concept of elite forces existing concurrently within the UK military.
Tier one special forces like the SAS and SBS are obviously the most prestigious, followed by tier two/commandos like the Paras and Royal Marines, and I guess you could say the Guards rank above the rest of the common infantry. I don't think even Britain is stuffy enough to consider old ceremonial units like the Guards more prestigious than the current elite. The Ranger Regiment is too new to really be proven, but I'd guess it'll be somewhat similar to the Paras and RM after a while.
I served 2 tours in Iraq in the usmc. I can tell you e thought of ourselves as better than the average army unit. We were not as well equipped but had maybe better unit cohesion? I have worked with a couple army units and was nothing but impressed.
@@wolfthegreat87 I was, specifically active us army. I met a few Lithuanian and some other NATO units while in Iraq and they were all incredible. I will say that USNG were pretty poorly equipped too at the time but they were still incredible soldiers.
@@MUZA1875 I've never met any British military members, I would imagine yall are very well equipped just like we were, but compared to US army its just nothing.
In addition to the social elite of the Horse Guards (for instance) I would characterize as elite in an 18th century context, a unit that is perceived to be slower to run in the face of casualties than the average unit. In that sense, some guards regiments are reasonably characterized as elite based on their battlefield performance, and further, a higher percentage of guards units would be so characterized than regular line units. This is quite probably a result of their being _seen_ as less likely to run, in a rather circular way. The same would apply to grenadier companies, which were regularly used to stiffen Line Infantry.
It’s definitely different nowadays for sure, the term ‘elite’ has a very broad range of meanings often meaning better trained so the USMC for example aren’t elite compared to British Marines and I can speak from experience having a taste of the training during my process of trying to join the Royal Marines 😅 it often comes down to the Tier system RM and Paras are In between tier 3 and 2 and SBS/SAS/SRR are tier 1 and as far as the guards go in my own experience at least before I started infantry training I was speaking to a Scots guard and he was saying that the guards are considered elite above regular line infantry and even when you start infantry training you are separated from the start from line infantry and guards and I think that has been the way of it since the foundation of the British army as we know it today after the civil war.
It doesn't help that there is a wide variation in what "elite" means. The Russians, for example, have the Spetsnaz...but that could mean everything from a Tier 1 Counter-terror group like Alpha or Vympel, to army recon/sabotage units, to what are effectively county SWAT teams under OMON. (interior ministry security)
When my group started reenacting the Peruvian Legion of the Guard we got asked that question a lot. The distinction ended up being much more mundane for the taste of many in the public. The only reason it was a Legion is simply because it was a “corp” comprised of one foot regiment, one light cavalry regiment and three artilliery batteries. And guard was simply put due to them being the guard of the government, being allocated to the capital.
The USMC is a branch just like the US Army and both in fact (and most) branches have special operations elements that would be considered elite, US Marines have the Raiders, US Army have Special Forces and Rangers, US Navy have the Seals, and US Air Force have Pararescue.
I think the point is that the basic USMC infantry unit also considers itself elite, whereas in the US Army it's more about particular units (like airborne and ranger) being considered elite. I belive the USMC doesn't actually wear unit patches on their uniforms, because they are all just proud of being marines, whereas the US Army places much more pride on the regimental level. There was even some resistance towards forming MARSOC because the leadership didn't like the idea of creating "elite marines" since all marines were already elite.
If we are considering whomever considers themselves elite then the US Army Infantry considers themselves elite, and so does US Army Cav, and the combat engineers……
@@charlesransom4546 ...and so does the Idaho Whitebread Freedom Militia (USA! USA! USA!) whose training materials come mostly from Hollywood films and re-runs of The A-Team.
Being a Guardsman is a matter of prestige rather than elite. Paras are elite, but too modern. Royal Marines are elite, but specialised. The true elite of the British Army were the assorted Highland regiments: the Forty-twa, Cameronians, the Sutherlands (the thin red line), the Argylls...all sadly gone now. I will give the Rifles and the Green Jackets a shout out though, they're pretty special (not a fan of the green uniforms though) 💋💋💋
I read an account of British troops in France during the Phony War, 1939-40, eventually ended by the German offensive. It noted morale and disciplinary problems were fairly common, partly due to boredom, with drink-related offences most common among Guards soldiers and members of Highland units.
@@maryannedouglas Perhaps not surprising for them but that the Guards were somewhat inclined to get sloshed was a surprise. Some English line unit indiscipline apparently included petty and occasionally not so petty assaults or theft committed against French civilians, but drunkenness was more common among Guards and Highland troops.
Can you do a vid detailing the change in uniform styles of the British army post 1790 where the Wigs and tri corns are done away with and side burns are the new fashion
Perhaps mentioning the 23rd Foot, the Royal Welch Fusiliers, who, being late to get rid of the pigtails that had been traditional, were later allowed to retain a "flash" at the back of the uniform collar as a regimental symbol.
Most things about Guard regiments would be that most commonly they would of course Gyard... But they would also, like at Waterloo with the French Old Guard, Boosted the Morale of all other regiments and strike fear into the enemy...
The best explaination I've ever heard of why Napoleon didn't often commit his guard regiments to battles WAS the fact he knew they were in fact human and could indeed be ripped apart by gunfire, and as a result was not willing to commit them to battles which weren't very winnable. He could then make them prominently visable to the rest of the army and those regiments would essentially believe they are fighting alongside a legendary unbreakable unit that has never been defeated.
@@0sm1um76this is an interesting take on why Napoleon didn’t use them during battles like Borodino and Leipzig because if they did were destroyed morale would take a large blow. An argument against this are the battles in 1814 when the Imperial Guard was one of the only remaining corps it did destroy enemy forces quite rapidly, proving their worth as veterans. Regards
The French old guards certainly were relative to most soldiers since they had to have 10 years of experience in the French army, though not old by regular human standards since you had to be under 35 to become an Old Guard
So, Guard regiment were mostly socially elite, whereas elite in the form of specialisation is found in Grenadiers, Light infantry etc . Except for the French Napoleonic army, where the Guard were veterans (and therefore more experienced and slightly more effective and steadfast, but not necessarily specialised), who also gained social status because of their veterancy?
It's not just the french guards. Russian guards were also elite. More training, and from 1811 made up of the best men from the rest of the army (each regiment was required to send their 6 best mpouwn annually to the guards, perfurably veterans).
From what I understand about Napoleon's Imperial Guard, he actively only let veterans of one or more campaigns join. So, because it was composed of much more veteran and skilled troops, would it make sense to say that the Imperial Guard is elite?
The Austrian Army didn't have any guard units: ""No Mameluks, no Praetiroans, no Janussaries." The ordinary marching regiements did garrison service in Vienna by rotation, and the ceremonial lifeguard duties were entrusted to the non-combatant units of the Trabanten-Garde and the mounted Arciern-Garde, which owned only about 100 officers and me each.' Duffy, The Army of Maria Theresa (1977)
Shuffling units around was quite common, certainly in the later Austro-Hungarian Army. It was considered unwise to let soldiers stay too long in the same area and become too familiar with the locals. Sometimes they were deliberately placed in areas where they did not speak the local language. Jaroslav Hasek in "The Good Soldier Svejk" comments on Czech troops being sent to garrison Hungary and Hungarians being sent to Bohemia, and the inevitable ethnic mix likely to result.
Marine, here. We're not elite, though we do have MARSOC, which is probably on par with Royal Marines. What we are is shock troops. Definitely scarier than a typical line unit, but not "elite" in the way most people imagine. We are special forces, but only in the same way that the Army's 10th Mountain or 101st Airborne are. All three units are trained for a specific mission-amphibious assault, helicopter assault, and mountain warfare. Other units can do these things, but they don't regularly rehearse them and aren't ready to do these missions on a moment's notice. At least not as well as a specialized unit.
Do you know how 18th Century militaries managed firearm safety? How much consideration was given to trigger discipline and muzzle awareness? How did they deal with a musket misfiring, and how was a musket unloaded without firing?
Given how difficult the guns were to reload, and the lack of reliability of the flintlock compared to the later percussion cap lock, the problem was actually the opposite: weapons sometimes didn't fire when intended. In the Spanish Army this led to a popular saying: "Las reclamaciones, al maestro armero" (all complains, to the gunsmith), which in general means "I did my best so if there's a bad outcome, it's not my fault". It came as a response by soldiers when questioned over poor performance in drills.
It's always interesting how Guards regiments composition and organisations are quite similar across cultures. One think I love about this video is your discussion on how terminologies have changed over the centuries. I did a meme about "sexy" Life Guard outfit in a class (in full armour and scarlet tunics) and the tutorial class was caught off guard cos of how the name "Life Guard" mean now. Or what the word "elite" mean for different groups of people. Great video!
It gets a bit annoying in English because "guard" is also used to mean a sentry/watcher, but in most languages some variant of the French "garde" is used exclusively for the military Guard units making it more clear.
I have another question Brandon, so when lines get broken by musket fire, where do they go when they rout? what happens when they rout? and do they just stop at the camp or just run anywhere?
I doubt I know the full answer, but from what I know that would depend on the enemy. If they have cavalry and are willing to commit it, than you just run and hope you don't get chased down, and then make the choice to regroup or desert. If they aren't willing to commit it than once you're out of danger the unit can reform and make a withdrawal. From what I've read (and there's always more to read so a few grains of salt) the line breaking wasn't the same as a full rout.
@@00yiggdrasill00It also depended on the terrain. A lot. In mountainous terrain even routed units could regroup after the battle, and in fact that was common for the Spanish Army (many guerrillas were basically routed units that had regrouped in the mountains behind enemy lines).
Idk if regular USMC grunts are necessarily "elite" but they are trained differently. Marines are shock troops, not occupiers. But marines do have their own special forces units like the raiders/force recon, as does the army with the green berets/rangers/delta force. I'd generally put army paratroopers/air assault units higher than regular marines on the "elite unit" ladder though
I do not consider USMC as elite. They are usually given older equipment than the US army, so I consider their combat value on the battlefield as lower. So if I am going to fight a land war I rather use the US army, while if I am going to invade an island in the pacific and take it from the Japanese, then I rather use marine infantry of the USMC. They are just specialized into different tasks. I consider the US Armys better equipment as the reason why I consider it to have more combat power. They used Abrams tanks while USMC used M60 tanks instead for a long time. Same goes for Appache helicopters, while USMC used Huey Cobra instead. USMC used Huey helicopters in Vietnam while USMC often used the old Sikorsky H-34.
Though an interesting point I heard brought up about paratroopers on a podcast was that their main strength comes from their air mobility and surprise. They're light infantry at the end of the day, and so lack the armour and artillery to fight for long periods by themselves. They're meant to capture far objectives but must be linked up with friendly forces otherwise they face annihilation
@@niono1587 True, but they're good at causing chaos on short deployments. And they've even held objectives for extended periods during the second world war- the 101st airborne held the germans for six weeks at Bastogne before Patton's 3rd Army punched through to relieve them.
@@bjornancraite2266 True that's what they're good for but it is such a risky job. Likewise in ww2 the Germans grounded their troops for the rest of the war after Crete and I'm sure we've all heard of Arnhem? The British Paratroopers just didn't have the equipment to deal with all the German armour
@@niono1587 Paratroopers are considered elite for many of the same reasons as marines, despite their specialisation (air and naval insertion) often being a very minor role of their overall service. But being supposed to go in the first wave on a beach or getting dropped behind enemy lines instills a certain spirit that is also supposed to carry over to regular infantry duties. Even though the usefulness of paratroopers on the modern battlefield is dubious, they are still considered a sort of second tier special forces in most militaries. However, a standard mechanised infantry unit will obviously destroy a light infantry paratroop unit when caught in the open. Morale can only do so much when up against superior firepower.
My mind just randomly thought that 18th century elite soldiers would be equipped with a rifle, a musketoon, a blunderbuss, two pistols, a sword and they carry them all mass effect style
I'm surprised that you didn't mentioned that the guards in the 18th century often wanted to get a special position in the battle formation - Fontenoy was a great opportunity to mention that. You missed it. We find often that the commanders of the guards (in France and UK) proclaimed a right to fight in the most dangerous or important position. Nevertheless, an interesting video.
You also have to factor in that the guard was feared because of their reputation, and so reputation plays so heavily on an enemies sake, and that would cause their morale to fail, which would result in the guards being successful in any kind of an assault so you know just the reputation of the guard for example, would put fear in the opposing units
You shut ups go to Oregon and check out Fort Stevens. Its a great historical area, its a state paro, and they have preserved this civil war era fort very well. Fort Stevens was used from the Civil War until the end of World War two, they have a lot of area to explore, and there is a tour of one of the batteries there. It was attacked in 1942 by a Japanese submarine. Its near Astoria, Oregon. I high recommend checking it out, its one of my favorite places in my home state of Oregon
I was going to comment on the status of Grenadiers within a battalion, but then Brandon dropped a bombshell with possibly doing a seperate video on them (and the Light company). Can't wait.
I'd say the British Guards are considered elite soldiers now. They're usually at the forefront of deployment. For example in the Falklands War the infantry task force consisted of the Marines, the Paras and two Guards regiments (I think, apologies if I have that wrong), so presumably they went as they were considered elite infantry soldiers.
Definitely not. They do somewhat think of them selfs as elite but the rest of the Army doesn’t. Their training and equipment is the same as the rest of the infantry. There deployment cycle is the same as the rest of the Army. As for the falklands campaign, the bulk of the Army was in Germany as part of the BOAR. The paras and marines are used as a QRF and the guards were based in the London area and were to hand. The units that took part were quite ad hoc. As a now ex-line Infantryman it pains me to say it but the marines and paras are the only elite units under UKSF. Better esprit de corps than line infantry.
@@joelyboy7 Thanks for that mate. I hadn't realized that and that is new to me. My assumption was that they were used as considered top flight infantry but what you say makes perfect sense, they were around when the bulk of the Army wasn't. I agree with you about the state of our military in general now sadly, the entire Army could sit in Wembley stadium with room to spare. Bad state of affairs.
The Guards are flat-out not elite, they are like every other Infantry Regiment of the British Army (other than ceremonial purposes) other than the Paras. Just look at WG's performance in the Falklands for evidence of such. The reason why they have been so regularly deployed since the end of the second world war is all political.
@joelyboy7 ex welsh guards here if it is the case that the guards are not trained to higher standard why is it we dig in on ex in basic and the line Infantry don't? Why is it the guards get better facilities with the paras and gurkahs ?
So the answer to this question is, "Yes, they **were** 'elite' soldiers, but 'elite' didn't mean back then what it means today." Also, could we definitely do that video on "gentleman volunteers?"
Though it is a wee bit of a newer regiment than the guards you were talking about, I'm now in the band of the Irish Guards as a piper, drummer, and clarinetist (I rotate instruments)
The Swedish royal guards ("Svea Livgarde" or "Svea Lifgarde") was consider one of the better regiments in the Swedish army. The men did not come from newly conquered former Danish provinces so they would not try to kill the King or thinking of defecting over to the enemy side in the middle of a battle. Their peace time duty was to act as the body guards of the royal family and to protect the Capitol against any coup attempts. Still to this day do Sweden have its tradition of troops guarding the royals, and a military band play some music when one unit takes over the responsability for guard duty from unit. Nowaydays are Stockholm often visited by regiments from all over Sweden who shares the responsability to guarding the palace for a few days. Svea Livgarde is one of the oldest regiments in the world. And it was among one of the best. During the battle of Lund 1676 did it come into direct contact with the Danish royal guards, and the both sides continued to fight each other instead of fleeing even after both sides had suffered 90% casualties... which says a lot about the dicipline and the fighting morale in those units. In modern day combat do most units lose their willingness to continue fighting after they have recieved say 20-25% losses. However Svea Livgarde with their nicer gold blue uniforms instead of the typical yellow blue other regiments had.. was still not the best unit in the Swedish army. That unit was Drabantkåren (Drabant Corps of Charles XII). It was the unit that was the elite of the elite. Even the Swedish royal guards was nothing compared to them. Indeed, no other regiment in Europe was had the same extremely high combat value as them. They were a small force consisting of the best men in the Swedish army. They had the best training and wore the best and most modern weapons in the world. If the troops asked for an expensive special weapon, then the King ordered that for them no matter of the cost. Even if it meant importing expensive luxuries from a foreign country. The men were well paid and had the nicest uniforms in the Swedish army. They were a Cavalry unit, but they could fight in any type of combat. And even if you had the lowest and simplest job in this regiment, would your rank be considered that of an officer in other regiments, so it was not uncommon that a man from Drabantkåren could take over command over other units in the Swedish army and lead them in battle. They had the skill and had such an enormous amount of combat experience that this was no problem. The men in this unit was made up of the most capable men so they could also take over responsability of governing the civil administration over an area.
Given the amount of combat experience that the Swedish regiments gained in the Great Northern War, all regiments probably had a very high combat value.
USMC Force Recon, when they are getting into specifics, are supposed to be elite, but normal USMC just think they are. Also worth noting that the Legion Etrangere, the French Foreign Legion, can trace themselves to the French Royal Guard regiments, which had foreign mercenary regiments, the Scottish and Swiss Guard are the main ones I remember. Then Napoleon happened, but there's a sort of line there, if you squint. Kinda cool anyways. Anyways, congrats on the book, sounds awesome!
Ive learned a ton about modern warfare from your channel, I think hands on history is some of the best way to draw real conclusions and I think being a re-enactor and well studied makes you an effective expert. I think you have a commendable attitude too! Forgive me but I gotta ask though, how tall are you? You look like a short king.
It's fascinating how reputation sometimes stretches far beyond the actual period of competency. Russia in the time period between the Napoleonic wars and the Crimean war is another example of this phenomenon.
1:50 the reason the Marines are held in a different regard is because they are always first. They are also a unique breed they are all fanatical about being marines. Served with them in the Navy since they are department of the Navy, anyway, those are warriors who I would compare to spartans. They eat, sleep, pray Devil Dog.
Small mistake at 11:34, it was actually his son, Frederick William I, the “Soldier King” who did that. It was like a project that he started during his father’s reign, but was more famously part of his own.
It's like the 1st US Inf in ww2 (the Big 1). While not organizationally elite in any way or in any way different from any other Inf Div, the Big 1 was still considered 'elite' because they were the 1st.
Did the guard regiments in England recruit civilians or from the rest of the army? What about the other nations? Differences between England, France, Russia, Austria?
Please Please please 🙏 make a video on the book „in Stahlgewittern“ (storms of steal) by Ernst Jünger. I think it’s one of the best WW1 books and Jünger has an incredibly interesting perspective on his time on the Western front.
It's similar to the Praetorian Guard of ancient Rome, they were an elite fighting force, and they served their Roman emperor. The legions themselves had their own elite infantry - the first cohort, this was the cream of the crop, veterans and skilled infantrymen, but they were more than just assault or shock infantry, the first cohort were also the guards for the legion, defending the centurions, and enforcing camp rules. The first cohort were also capable of launching clandestine missions behind enemy lines, this is the closest to modern day special forces, as the first cohort had reconnaissance missions, raiding, ambushing, and screening ahead of the legion while on the march. The Praetorians were indeed the "Elite" of the Roman empire, they were typically recruited from the best legionaries, and promoted to a high status in Roman society, it also gave them higher political privileges in the Roman senate, to be promoted to Praetorian was seen as being set for life, hence being elite.
First to comment! Anyways while the rambling made it a bit confusing it certainly explains the misconception well. Anyways composite is Comp (As in compensate) oz (as in onwards) zit. (Comp-oz-it)
An interesting counter to this if the men are sent back. During the napoleonic wars Russian regulars sent their best men to the guards, but the guards sent veteran ncos back.
I could be incorrect, but wasn’t Napoleon’s guard, Garde impériale, considered to be elite? Especially the old guard formation. I don’t know if this was talked about in the video but I don’t remember it being discussed.
Hello Brandon. This reminded me of the idea of guards in the revolutionary wars as being seen as all trimming and wig, unable to cope with the dash of young vigorous soldiers of the revolution. I worked with a couple of former Royal Marines at different times. One was super fit, like Rambo in First Blood and the other was immense, like World's Strongest Man. Obviously not just ordinary blokes.
The French Maison du Roi pretty much disintegrated due to the Revolution. It is well known that the Swiss Guards were for the most part massacred in 1792, but other guard units seem to have gone over to the Revolution, or sought foreign exile, sometimes as Royalists attached to foreign armies. The French Army of the Ancien Regime had made it impossible for those who were not nobility of some kind to gain commissions. Michel Ney, who went from being an NCO in an army hussar regiment to a field marshal under Napoleon, is a good example of the unleashed military talent made possible by the French Revolution.
@@stevekaczynski3793 I tried to condense that into a few words, but a good explanation. I was also thinking of some of the armies the Sans Culottes made look out of date from other European countries. Certainly there was also a revolution in uniform design as mass armies replaced small professional ones, some of which had uniforms better suited to ceremony.
@@alansmithee8831 Whereas the infantry of the Ancien Regime had had different facing colours for each regiment, this was not attempted in the infantry of the much larger armies of the Revolution and then Napoleon. Basically, all line infantry had white lapels and red cuffs, all light infantry dark blue lapels and yellow cuffs.
It must also be taken into account that the soldiers of the Guards Regiments, due to their above-average size, also had a longer arm span, which increased their effectiveness in volley fire.
It's also interesting that, at least among NATO-style militaries, "elite" forces are typically some variety of light infantry troops. Contrast this with Russia, where "Guards" regiments might be considered "elite," but are full-bore combined arms formations. Even then Russia also has elite light infantry troops (see the VDV, Spetsnaz, and naval infantry).
Did they work for the Crown? Or the East India Company or The Hudson bay Company??? The reason Cornwallis surrended at Yorktown was the other share holders, thought he spent too much money and was cut off.
Afte t 1806 debacle when the Prussians were reorganize their army the show battalion to try new regulations was the Normal Battalion, eventually moving into the guard.
Usmc not elite, generally. But specific subsets of it definitely yes, particularly marsoc. I think the British royal Marines are generally elite, and of course a much smaller force than the usmc.
Couldn't the guards in UK at least, always recruit from the entire country (Scotland or England or Wales, etc...) whereas the line regiments would only recruit from a specific town or county? That would allow them to be more discerning in who they let in right?
The one nice thing about the skip-forward function on my computer is that I can skip over Brandon's "rambling". He would do better to write a script. KISS (Keep It Sooooooo Simple, and be much more entertaining and informative. His information is good and accurate. In that he does a good job, but if he cut out his disorganized ramblings he could cut his videos well down in length.
An elves with bow and arrow versus a napoleonic military line infantry or skirmisher like voltigeurs and 95th rifles, who would win in open field battle or skirmish?
Brandon earlier today I watched a video on forgotten weapons a Flintlock that could shoot more than once that the British military turned down if they would have adopted it who do you think would have been the first regiment to be issued these flintlocks if the regular army what have adopted them? I know that the East India Company did adopt them.
